On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 16:31:39 -0400 Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 8/2/23 12:51, Patrick Palka via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:11 PM Bernhard Reutner-Fischer > > <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi David, Patrick, > >> > >> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 18:33:46 +0200 > >> Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 11:24:06 -0400 > >>> Patrick Palka <ppa...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 7:26 PM Bernhard Reutner-Fischer via > >>>> Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> diff --git a/gcc/cp/tree.cc b/gcc/cp/tree.cc > >>>>> index 131b212ff73..19dfb3ed782 100644 > >>>>> --- a/gcc/cp/tree.cc > >>>>> +++ b/gcc/cp/tree.cc > >>>>> @@ -1173,7 +1173,7 @@ build_cplus_array_type (tree elt_type, tree > >>>>> index_type, int dependent) > >>>>> } > >>>>> > >>>>> /* Avoid spurious warnings with VLAs (c++/54583). */ > >>>>> - if (TYPE_SIZE (t) && EXPR_P (TYPE_SIZE (t))) > >>>>> + if (CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (TYPE_SIZE (t))) > >>>> > >>>> Hmm, this change seems undesirable... > >>> > >>> mhm, yes that is misleading. I'll prepare a patch to revert this. > >>> Let me have a look if there were other such CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P changes > >>> that we'd want to revert. > >> > >> Sorry for that! > >> I'd revert the hunk above and the one in gcc-rich-location.cc > >> (maybe_range_label_for_tree_type_mismatch::get_text), please see > >> attached. Bootstrap running, ok for trunk if it passes? > > > > LGTM! > > Yes, OK. Now applied as r14-5508 (186331063dfbcf1eacb445c473d92634c9baa90f) thanks
